or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Daily CE Musings of Piob - Page 59

post #871 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

Can the cop force you to hand over your password on the spot? All the more reason to have it set up to auto-wipe your phone with too many failed attempts.

Yeah, I think my password is 1-2-3-4-5. Oh that didn't work? Try it again. Maybe it is 1-1-1-1-1. I can never remember these things.
post #872 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jr Mouse View Post

Can the cop force you to hand over your password on the spot? All the more reason to have it set up to auto-wipe your phone with too many failed attempts.

Was there not a court ruling that one cannot plead the Fifth and refuse to divulge a password already? I also wonder about scope, as even with an autowipe, if the decision has been made to search your phone and it autowipes, will they then be allowed to force your carrier to hand over call and text records?

Edit: I was incorrect. Apparently the 11th Circuit federal court of appeals ruled the Fifth covers this and one cannot be forced to give passwords.
Edited by Piobaire - 4/28/14 at 10:55am
post #873 of 5110
Given the scotus reference, what the consensus on aereo here?
post #874 of 5110
I was reading about the current case earlier. My hope is that it's so obviously an egregious breach of the Fourth Amendment that the Court couldn't possibly find otherwise, but we'll see. The potential for abuse of power is staggering if they do go the other way.
post #875 of 5110
From just the basic news ruling, Police pick up a gangbanger for expired plates and then find contraband handguns in the vehicle. They search his phone and find out that he really is a gangbanger which upped the sentence from 7 to 15.

I think there are a few ways the court can go at this. Remember -- the Court was wary of the warrantless GPS tracking. TBH --- they could draw a narrow ruling here stating that an unlocked/no-password protected phone is no different than any other piece of personal property on an arrest.

Password protected phones could require a warrant --- this unlocks Pandora's box as to whether an individual can be compelled to give a password or encryption key. Another big concern is the slippery slope that occurs if the court finds as a matter of law there is no expectation of privacy in the data on the phone. How far does that extend -- the cloud?

Given that this opens Pandora's box on issues not before the Court, I think the court draws the narrow ruling on an non-password-protected phone and leaves the rest for another day.
post #876 of 5110
I find it hard to believe that the cops should have any difficulty cracking a phone's password without the defendant's help.
post #877 of 5110
Supreme Court precedent on searches incident to arrest is an inconsistent mess. Who knows what they'll do?

Anyway, traditionally, if you were carrying a notebook full of contact information, correspondence, and pictures, when you were arrested, the cops could read it. How's a cell phone different again?
post #878 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Supreme Court precedent on searches incident to arrest is an inconsistent mess. Who knows what they'll do?

Anyway, traditionally, if you were carrying a notebook full of contact information, correspondence, and pictures, when you were arrested, the cops could read it. How's a cell phone different again?

Amongst other things it's a portal into other things. Online banking, web surfing history, and now "the cloud." Does this mean your iCloud or OneDrive is now subject to warrantless searches through your phone if arrested?
post #879 of 5110
I have a password on my phone. I have a password manager installed (also with a password) that has login information to literally every site I have an account with. My Google account is synced across my phone and my various computers. If they are allowed to search such things, perhaps if I accidentally left it logged in, they could view essentially my entire life. Everything I've ordered, all my financial information, thousands and thousands of communications going back years, every random Google search that I've made. There's a lot of stuff in there that could be twisted to look bad out of context, and either way, I don't want their prying eyes digging into it.
post #880 of 5110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Amongst other things it's a portal into other things. Online banking, web surfing history, and now "the cloud." Does this mean your iCloud or OneDrive is now subject to warrantless searches through your phone if arrested?

Surfing history, maybe, but I can't imagine that the phone stores bank account or remote storage passwords. If it does maybe you should fix that before someone swipes it.
post #881 of 5110
What jib is saying though is, if he had to hand over his password, they could automatically unlock just about anything else they wanted without being prompted - ie the Wells Fargo ap might auto-open. This is concerning for obvious reasons.
post #882 of 5110
Cops can't make you give up a password for a search incident to arrest. A court could order it later, but not without the same evidence that would get them a warrant for the phone anyway.

I suppose they could download the contents of the phone's memory and bypass the password that way. But even if they have your password it doesn't give them the right to use it to log into your remote accounts, no more than them getting your keys lets them search your house.
post #883 of 5110
post #884 of 5110
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Surfing history, maybe, but I can't imagine that the phone stores bank account or remote storage passwords. If it does maybe you should fix that before someone swipes it.

We are not talking about what I personally have on my phone. I would not, at least with current technology, access any bank/broker account on my smart phone. However, millions of folks do.

Here is a quote from the two cases in question:
Quote:
In the digital age, when about 90 percent of US citizens own cellphones and 58 percent have a smart phone, a legal battle is raging behind the scenes as to whether cellphones should be protected under the Fourth Amendment, which forbids “unreasonable searches and seizures.” Or should the technology become fair game for the police following an arrest?

The question will be considered in the case of David Leon Riley (Riley v California 13-1312), who was pulled over in San Diego in 2009 for driving with an expired license. After discovering guns in his car, the police found evidence on Riley’s Samsung smart phone that got him convicted on attempted murder charges.

The state of California rejected efforts by Riley’s attorney to toss out the use of the digital evidence.

In the other case (United States v Wurie, 13-212), Brima Wurie was arrested in Massachusetts for dealing drugs. Following a search of his cellphone’s call log, investigators found an address, where they discovered more illegal substances and a gun. Unlike the case of David Riley, Wurie had his sentence overturned when the court rejected the evidence retrieved from his phone.

I'll let you and the other lawyers comment but there is quite a bit of commentary by both lawyers and International Maritime experts on the web today about this.
post #885 of 5110
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/two-weeks-234-abducted-nigerian-schoolgirls-are-still-missing-180951236/?utm_source=facebook.com&no-ist

Horrific story about the sort of thing that goes on in the world.

What's interesting is the studied effort to avoid talking about religion in the article. If a right-wing anti-abortion group bombed an abortion clinic tomorrow, would the Xtian religion be privilege to this sort of kid-glove treatment?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Daily CE Musings of Piob